Gordon P. Acton

The applicant corporation sought the return of funds seized from its bank account by a secured creditor, arguing that the seizure was invalid under a General Security Agreement and the Personal Property Security Act.

The applicant alleged that the wrong security agreement had initially been served, that the GSA was ambiguous and unenforceable, that it was not in default, that notice requirements under the PPSA were breached, and that the warrant authorized seizure of the account rather than the funds.

The court rejected each argument, holding that the GSA was valid and enforceable, the applicant was in default through its guarantee of the borrower’s indebtedness, and the secured creditor’s enforcement complied with the PPSA.

The court also held that funds in the account constituted proceeds that could be directly seized under the statute.

The application for return of the seized monies was dismissed.

The applicant roofing company brought a pre-trial motion to exclude the expert evidence of an architect and engineer retained by the respondent.

The consultant had been involved in advising the respondent on roof repairs prior to and during the applicant's work.

The court held that Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply to experts who are involved in the history of the subject matter, as opposed to those retained solely for litigation.

The motion was dismissed, and the consultant was permitted to provide both factual and opinion evidence at trial.